Potential drop, across interface

The experimental data and arguments by Trassatti [25] show that at the PZC, the water dipole contribution to the potential drop across the interface is relatively small, varying from about 0 V for An to about 0.2 V for In and Cd. For transition metals, values as high as 0.4 V are suggested. The basic idea of water clusters on the electrode surface dissociating as the electric field is increased has also been supported by in situ Fourier transfomr infrared (FTIR) studies [26], and this model also underlies more recent statistical mechanical studies [27]. 

A typical example of an ideal polarizable interface is the mercury-solution interface [1,2]. From an experimental point of view it is characterized by its electrocapillary curve describing the variation of the interfacial tension 7 with the potential drop across the interface, 0. Using the thermodynamic relation due to Lippmann, we get the charge of the wall a (-a is the charge on the solution side) from the derivative of the electrocapillary curve ... 

An electric potential drop across the boundary between two dissimiliar phases as well as at their surfaces exposed to a neutral gas phase is the most characteristic feature of every interface and surface electrified due to ion separation and dipole orientation. This charge separation is usually described as an ionic double layer. 

Since the first use of SECM to study ET kinetics at a liquid-liquid interface in 1995 [47], the methodology has been proven a powerful approach for investigating the dependence of ET rate constants on the Galvani potential drop across an ITIES. 

The ITIES with an adsorbed monolayer of surfactant has been studied as a model system of the interface between microphases in a bicontinuous microemulsion [39]. This latter system has important applications in electrochemical synthesis and catalysis [88-92]. Quantitative measurements of the kinetics of electrochemical processes in microemulsions are difficult to perform directly, due to uncertainties in the area over which the organic and aqueous reactants contact. The SECM feedback mode allowed the rate of catalytic reduction of tra 5-l,2-dibromocyclohexane in benzonitrile by the Co(I) form of vitamin B12, generated electrochemically in an aqueous phase to be measured as a function of interfacial potential drop and adsorbed surfactants [39]. It was found that the reaction at the ITIES could not be interpreted as a simple second-order process. In the absence of surfactant at the ITIES the overall rate of the interfacial reaction was virtually independent of the potential drop across the interface and a similar rate constant was obtained when a cationic surfactant (didodecyldimethylammonium bromide) was adsorbed at the ITIES. In contrast a threefold decrease in the rate constant was observed when an anionic surfactant (dihexadecyl phosphate) was used. 

In fact, the orientation of water at the potential of zero charge is expected to depend approximately linearly on the electronegativity of the metal.9 This orientation (see below) may be deduced from analysis of the variation of the potential drop across the interface with surface charge for different metals and electrolytes. Such analysis leads to the establishment of a hydrophilicity scale of the metals ( solvophilicity for nonaqueous solvents) which expresses the relative strengths of metal-solvent interaction, as well as the relative reactivities of the different metals to oxygen.23... 

Integrating twice to get the potential drop across the interface, we have... 

It is usually assumed that the components of a metal are ions (with tightly bound charge) and electrons, so that there are no polarizable species in the metal phase. The contribution of the metal to the potential drop across the interface is then... 

A typical electrocapillarity system is shown in Figure 2.1(a). The mercury reservoir provides a source of clean mercury to feed a capillary tube the height of mercury in this tube can be varied such that the mass of the Hg column exactly balances the surface tension between the mercury and the capillary walls, see Figure 2.1(b). A voltage V is applied across the mercury in the capillary and a second electrode which is non-polarisable (i.e. the interface will not sustain a change in the potential dropped across it), such as the normal hydrogen electrode, NHE. The potential distribution across the two interfaces is shown in Figure 2.1(c). As can be seen ... 

In order to extract the variation of y with V from equation (2.5), link this with the potential drop across the mercury interface, A(f>, and so make sense of the experimentally obtained y vs. V plots, the potential dependence of aM is required this is only possible within the framework of a model. 

Thus, we have a relationship between y and the potential drop across the mercury/electrolyte interface, as desired in addition, the relationship is parabolic. However, a link must now be established between the unmeasurable A, and the measured applied potential. 

Now, at the point of zero charge, equation (2.9) implies that A = 0 i.e. that the pzc corresponds to a potential drop across the interface of zero and, from equation (2.2), that M = s. This is not found in practice owing to the layer of water molecules at the electrode surface that are present even at the pzc. These water dipoles give rise to an additional contribution to A, see Figure 2.4(a). This additional potential drop, AD, will change sign according to the orientation of the water dipoles at the electrode, and equation (2.2) can thus be re-written as ... 

In general a polar bond is formed when an ion is specifically adsorbed on a metal electrode this results in an uneven distribution of charges between the adsorbate and the metal and hence in the formation of a surface dipole moment. So the adsorption of an ion gives rise to a dipole potential drop across the interface in addition to that which exists at the bare metal surface. 

Figure 1,2. Distribution of potential across a working electrochemical cell. The potential drop across the working electrode-solution interface drives the cell reaction.

The conductivity of the electrolytes also plays a role in controlling nanotube array growth. Ethylene glycol containing 2% water and 0.35 % NH4F have a conductivity of 460 pS/cm which is much lower than the conductivity of the formamide based electrolytes (>2000 pS/cm) [27]. The total applied anodization voltage is the sum of the potential difference at the metal-oxide interface, the potential drop across the oxide, the potential difference at the oxide-electrolyte interface, and the potential drop across the... 

An externally applied potential controls the Fermi level of the semiconductor with respect to the reference electrode in the solution. Changes of the potential affect the potential drop across the semiconduc-tor/electrolyte interface. In most situations of electrochemical reactions, the potential drop in the solution Helmholtz layer can be neglected, and thus a gradient of potential is generated in the space charge... 

Figure 1.5 shows a schematic representation of the double layer at a planar solid-liquid interface. The potential drop across the Helmholz layer is shown as linear (in the presence of specific adsorption, it will not be completely linear), followed by a tailing-off of the potential into the diffuse layer. For concentrated solutions (>0.1 M) the diffuse layer is typically a nanometer or less, while for dilute solutions it may be tens or even hundreds of nanometers. 

---